User talk:Adam Carr
Adam -- To answer your questions as best as I can. The photo issue has been discussed and is being worked on. The problem is copyright; so many of the wikipedia images have dubious status. I am not sure of the exact status of this work, but the technical people have been working on it. Check out the forums, http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/board,18.0.html, someone there can almost defintely give you more info.
Your live article looks fine to me.
Send the bug to http://forge.citizendium.org/gf/project/caesarwiki/tracker/ . I suspect there are more pressing bugs, but the technical people are keeping track at least.
cheers Fred Salsbury 15:33, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Oh yes, plenty of teething problem. You need to register separately for the forums (and probably for the tracker, I haven't used it). However, the registration is easier for the forums as manual activation isn't required. Just register, I think there is a confirmation email, and you are set. Fred Salsbury 14:20, 7 January 2007 (CST)
RE Photos: There a photo upload facility.
http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Imagelist
http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Upload
It will accept gif and jpg files but not .svg or .png CORRECTION NOW ALSO .png Keep them below 150k approx
Im in Melbourne BTW U Melb David Tribe 07:02, 25 January 2007 (CST)
Saw your note, and would enjoy collaboration, although I'm a bit out of HIV this last ten years. Strangely I have 12,000 photos of Italy, mainly buildings, cities, statues, but not Roma regrettably, which Ill have to fix the expensive but best way. David Tribe 08:54, 26 January 2007 (CST)
A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail [email protected]. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.
Sources template
I saw your message at User_talk:Larry_Sanger#Sources_category and was able to answer your question. Stephen Ewen 05:35, 22 February 2007 (CST)
Wannsee Conference
Adam, I can understand how you might feel about the extremely well researched and valuable article that you've imported from WP (to which I assume that you've made substantial research contributions), but mass reversion of good faith edits without debate is a practice we want to discourage, as it it prevents effective collaboration. It's my intention (after a short wait to allow some deliberation) to reverse your reversal. Can I ask you to then dialogue via the talk pages about the issues involved. Constable David Tribe 07:59, 25 February 2007 (CST)
- Thanks for your response Adam. The issues touched on by this discussion go to the heart of this matter of collaborations and collegiality at CZ. I am acting as a Constable, and would ask that you work with me to promote an atmosphere that allows interaction. I do not see this as favoring 'one side' or another and and apart from expressing my personal admiration for your obvious scholarship, have left aside content matters, the 'qualifications' of the other participant, and the quality of the stylistic suggestions. The very high quality of your contribution and the coherency and importance of the topic is without question. We have to consider the effect of your actions on other participants, and the basic ground rule that individuals do not 'own' topics. That said, can I respectfully directly request that you work hard at being open to the other author's inputs, and that you re-consider what you can personally do to remove this as a confrontation? I will leave the ball in your court for a decent interval.Constable David Tribe 15:33, 25 February 2007 (CST)
- Can I also mention that I have direct experience of the value of accepting the influence of different styles of writing even when the new stylist is sometimes making scholarly errors, but also I have personally experienced the frustration of comments that are insensitive to a complex context. Yes, its not easy, but it is very rewarding and can be productive. In my experience, out of such openness comes opportunity, and sometimes refreshing change. David Tribe 15:31, 25 February 2007 (CST)
Vandalism
Apologies that vandals created strange results in your watchlist. Be assured it was vandals; I was one of the Constables dealing with them, and the new registration procedures and other security measures were introduced to stop them. Fortunately that distressing period is over now. David Tribe 08:10, 25 February 2007 (CST)
Me
Hello Adam, not that it matters, but for your future reference and to let you know that you were not going crazy, I am the chiropractor that was on the Jesus page. Cheers ;) -Matt Innis (Talk) 19:59, 25 February 2007 (CST)
WP Checkbox
Hi Adam, My understanding of the policy, as we flesh things out, is that you should definitely check the "from WP" box - this is just a copyright issue. You first posted it there, so it gives us a heads up. However, you should also make it CZ Live, and maybe just put a note on the talk page that indicates you were the primary author of the article on WP so you were carrying it over. We aren't obliterating all WP content. It turns out a few weeks back there was a burst, post-unforking, of people just blindly copying over articles from WP that were topics they were interested in but articles that they hadn't worked on or didn't plan on editing. Hope that clears things up. -- Sarah Tuttle 08:17, 26 February 2007 (CST)
Hi, Manning Clark happens to be on the cleanup list I signed up for, and I have a couple of questions about how to handle the template, etc. It's very much like the Wikipedia article (each in its current form), but doesn't have the Wikipedia check box checked. I understand from your submission note that this is from your own rewrite of the article; and things that are one's own text can in principle be reproduced here without the checkbox, as I understand the policy. Problem is, it looks like a WP copy (and I can't find the WP September version that the submission note refers to -- could that be a misprint that needs to be corrected?)
I think the current practice is to put a note at the top of the Talk page, making the explicit claim to full authorship, so that the lack of borrowing from WP is documented. There is now a template for the purpose, called WPAuthor. In fact, there's a usage example on a page I've been working on, Talk:Galileo_Galilei. I'm not sure I recommend the wording I used, but it would need some claim that the text is your own where it duplicates WP, right down to the level of single sentences.
I'll hold off on Big Cleanup work on the article for the moment, till I know what to do. Daniel Drake 16:16, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
- Sorry I was unclear; there's no big cleanup involved on your part, and the article certainly doesn't look as if it needs any. I was referring to CZ:The Big Cleanup project that's trying to get a handle on the source and status of every article that's now in CZ; I'm doing that task for a few of them.
- So, since you did pick up the article at a revision level that was 100% your work, we absolutely don't need or want to set any Wikipedia-material flag on the article. We just need to document that it's all your material. So I'll put a WPAuthor template in the discussion page for the article; at your convenience, please go in and edit that with a few words stating that you took a version that was entirely your work and have submitted it to CZ. That's all CZ needs to keep itself well covered in the intellectual property biz. Thanks for the help. Daniel Drake 22:51, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks for finishing up the formalities. Daniel Drake 01:20, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
Little Help with the Bismarck Page
Hi!
I saw that you have Ph D. in history and an interest in Germany History and I was wondering if you had the spare time and knowledge if you could look over my beginning of an article on Otto Von Bismarck. It's not very encyclopedic (I copied it from a brief biographical sketch I wrote on him for a friend) but any help at all, if you can, would be deeply appreciated.
Thank you very much and sorry to have bothered you,
--Rob Glass 20:56, 11 March 2007 (CDT)
Articles up for deletion
Hi Adam, you have the right to remove a "speedydelete" notice, but to prevent it from being placed back on the article, you could either (1) expand the article, or (2) put a note on the talk page explaining that you're maintaining it. --Larry Sanger 17:04, 2 June 2007 (CDT)